Instruments of Commerce and Knowledge: Probe Microscopy, 1980-2000

Cyrus C. M. Mody

Chemical Heritage Foundation

Introduction

The voices of editorialists and analysts excoriating or praising commercialization

of products of higher education has recently grown very loud.1 Yet this debate too often

proceeds at an abstract level divorced from the small-scale settings where

commercialization actually occurs. The questions asked are too stark, and the dangers

and benefits of academic entrepreneurialism are amplified beyond recognition. As

Steven Shapin notes in a recent survey, proponents’ and nay-sayers’ limited historical

horizons lead to, among other things, ludicrous over-praising of incentives to patent

academic research and over-dire warnings about the corporate university.2 The few

historical studies that could contribute to this debate, while praiseworthy, have

My thanks to Mike Lynch, Arthur Daemmrich, Steve Shapin, John Staudenmaier, and David Kaiser for their advice and encouragement on various drafts of this paper. Audiences at Arizona State, the American Sociological Association, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Chemical Heritage Foundation also provided useful comments. Portions of this work have appeared in Technology and Culture. This work was made possible by funding from NBER, the NSF, and the IEEE History Center, as well as by the generous cooperation of my interviewees.1 See Norman E. Bowie, ed., University-Business Partnerships: An Assessment, Issues in Academic Ethics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994); Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Roger L. Geiger, Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004); Frank Newman, Lara Couturier, and Jamie Scurry, The Future of Higher Education: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Risks of the Market (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004); David L. Kirp, Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Eric Gould, The University in a Corporate Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); and the essays in Donald G. Stein, ed., Buying In Or Selling Out: The Commercialization of the American Research University (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2004) and Joseph C. Burke, ed., Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004).2 Steven Shapin, “Ivory Trade,” London Review of Books 25, no. 17 (2003): 15-19.

1

concentrated too narrowly on a handful of particularly entrepreneurial universities

(Stanford and MIT), disciplines/industries (microelectronics and biotechnology), and

regions (Silicon Valley and Route 128 near Boston).3

Yet these studies neglect important aspects of participants’ experience of

corporate-academic cooperation. Most researchers participate in networks that are

geographically dispersed and that include colleagues in both academia and industry and

from a variety of disciplines. To understand the commercialization of academic

knowledge, we need a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary, multi-regional unit of

analysis – what I will call an “instrumental community.” By this I mean the porous

group of people commonly oriented to building, developing, using, selling, and

popularizing a particular technology of measurement.4 Such communities are

“instrumental” primarily in focusing on new research tools – microscopes, fruit flies,

tobacco mosaic virus, lab rats, cathode ray tubes, etc.5 Because such communities

3 For MIT and Stanford, see Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford, 1 ed. (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993); John Servos, “The industrial relations of science: Chemical engineering at MIT, 1900-1939,” Isis 81 (1980): 531-49; R. S. Lowen, “Transforming the University - Administrators, Physicists, and Industrial and Federal Patronage At Stanford, 1935-49,” History of Education Quarterly 31, no. 3 (1991): 365-388; and C. Lecuyer, “Academic science and technology in the service of industry: MIT creates a "permeable" engineering school,” American Economic Review 88, no. 2 (1998): 28-33. For biotech and microelectronics, see Martin Kenney, Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) and Christophe Lécuyer, Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930-1970 (Cambridge, Mass., 2006). For a regional perspective, see Anna-Lee Saxenian, Regional Networks: Industrial Adaptation in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); Peter Hall and Ann Markusen, eds., Silicon Landscapes (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985).4 The “instrumental community” bears a close resemblance to the “innovation communities” analyzed by Sonali K. Shah, “Open Beyond Software,” in Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution, ed. Danese Cooper, Chris DiBona, and Mark Stone (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, 2005). “Instrumental community” is – so far as I know – my own formulation, but others have covered very similar ground, especially: Stuart Blume, Insight and Industry: On the Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992) and Terry Shinn, “Crossing Boundaries: The Emergence of Research-Technology Communities,” in Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, ed. Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff (London: Pinter, 1997), 85-96.5 For studies in this vein, see: Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), Boelie Elzen, “Two Ultracentrifuges: A Comparative Study of the Social Construction of Artefacts,” Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 621-662; Karen Rader, Making Mice: Standardizing

2

usually include academic and commercial participants, though, they will often seek ways

to morph those tools into industrially-relevant devices. Thus, such communities are also

“instrumental” in focusing on new ways of doing or making things.

There are a number of excellent case studies of various instrumental communities,

spanning from the seventeenth century to the 1960s.6 Yet there have been virtually no

studies of instrumental communities that have arisen since the late 1970s. This is

unfortunate in that this is the period on which the most overheated rhetoric about

academic capitalism is focused. We know that there have been significant changes in

legislation, federal funding, corporate research, and the demographics of science in the

past three decades.7 We do not know how those changes have affected the operation of

instrumental communities, nor how they have affected relationships between corporate

and academic members of those communities. This chapter aims to bring these issues to

the fore through a case study of the development and commercialization of the scanning

tunneling microscope (STM) and its near-relatives, the atomic force microscope (AFM)

and magnetic force microscope (MFM) – known collectively as probe microscopes.8

Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900-1955 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).6 See, chronologically, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985); Myles W. Jackson, “Buying the dark lines of the spectrum: Joseph von Fraunhofer’s standard for the manufacture of optical glass,” in Scientific Credibility and Technical Standards in 19th and Early 20th Century Germany and Britain, Jed Z. Buchwald, ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996), 1-22; and David Pantalony, “Seeing a voice: Rudolph Koenig's instruments for studying vowel sounds,” American Journal of Psychology 117, no. 3 (2004): 425-442; Nicolas Rasmussen, Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940-1960 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997); Joan Lisa Bromberg, The Laser in America, 1950-1970 (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1991); and Timothy Lenoir and Christoph Lécuyer, “Instrument Makers and Discipline Builders: The Case of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,” Perspectives on Science, no. 3 (1995): 276-345.7 As outlined in Philip Mirowski and Esther-Miriam Sent, “STS, the Economics of Science, and the Commercialization of University Science,” ed. Edward Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wacjman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming).8 The technical details of the microscopes are important to this story, but can be glossed for the purposes of this chapter. Basically, all scanning probe microscopes bring a very small solid probe very close (usually to within a nanometer – one billionth of a meter) to a sample and measure the strength of different kinds of interactions between probe and sample to determine the height (and other characteristics) of the sample. The probe is then rastered much like the pixels on a TV screen and a matrix of values for the strength of the

3

Twenty-five years ago there was one, home-made, unreliable STM at the IBM research

lab in Zurich. Today, through the joint efforts of corporate and academic researchers,

there are thousands of AFMs, MFMs, and STMs at universities, national labs, and

industrial research and quality control facilities. High school students make STMs from

Legos, while chip manufacturers use million-dollar AFMs on the factory floor. One

AFM has even made it to the surface of Mars.

Inventing and Community-Building

Invention can be a precarious business, particularly for corporate scientists and

engineers.9 Inventions often emerge from digressions from assigned tasks, and may not

initially meet any commercial objective. The STM, for one, was this kind of institutional

orphan. Its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heini Rohrer, had been tasked with finding new

ways to characterize thin films used in an advanced supercomputer project on which IBM

had staked much of its reputation. Yet by the time they came up with the STM as an

tip-sample interaction is converted into a visual “picture” of the surface. Different probe microscopes use different kinds of tip-sample interactions to generate their images. The first, the STM, works by putting a voltage difference between the tip and a metal or semiconductor sample; when the tip is brought close to the sample, some electrons will quantum mechanically “tunnel” between them. The number of electrons that do so (the “tunnel current”) is exponentially dependent on the distance between tip and sample; also, the stream of tunneling electrons is very narrow. Thus, an STM has ultrahigh resolution both vertically and laterally – most STMs can actually see individual atoms on many samples. Today, the STM’s younger cousin, the atomic force microscope, is more commonly used. An AFM uses a very small but flexible cantilever as a probe; as the tip of the cantilever (usually weighted with a small pyramid of extra atoms) is brought close to the surface, the cantilever bends due to the attraction or repulsion of interatomic forces between tip and sample. The degree of bending is then a proxy for the height of the surface. Originally this bending was measured by putting an STM on the back of the cantilever; today the deflection is detected by bouncing a laser off the cantilever and measuring the movement of the reflected spot. Another common and industrially-relevant tool, the magnetic force microscope, works in a similar way, but uses a magnetic tip to map the strength of magnetic domains on a surface, rather than surface height. Both the AFM and MFM have slightly less resolution than the STM (i.e. they cannot usually see single atoms); yet because they (unlike the STM) can be used on insulators as well as conductors, and in air and fluids as well as vacuum, they have become much more popular.9 Indeed, inventors of instruments (or those who take credit for having invented them) often seem to have vexed positions within the firms that employ them. See, for instance, the description of Kary Mullis’ antagonistic relationship with Cetus in Paul Rabinow, Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

4

answer to the thin film problem, the supercomputer project had been canceled.10 Binnig

and Rohrer’s response was three-fold. First, they hid the STM from managerial view –

easy enough at the Zurich lab, far from corporate headquarters and well-known for lax

oversight. Second, they began querying IBM colleagues about new ways to use the

STM, eventually attracting interest from the company’s large cadre of semiconductor

surface scientists.

Their third, key strategy was to cultivate an extramural, academic community

committed to the STM by encouraging their network of acquaintances to replicate the

instrument. As this instrumental community grew both inside and outside Big Blue,

IBM’s senior research managers decided that the STM – despite the absence of

commercial relevance – should become a major corporate project. Multiple groups of

scientists at the IBM laboratories in Zurich, Yorktown Heights, New York and Almaden,

California were recruited out of graduate school to build STMs and make discoveries that

would bring credit to the instrument and to the company. In turn, IBM’s research

archrival, Bell Labs, saw a need to steal Big Blue’s thunder and began recruiting its own

cadre of STMers.

The dynamics of building the STM community show how the corporate and

academic worlds are interpermeated much more thoroughly and enduringly than is often

noticed in debates about academic commercialization. Binnig and Rohrer could quickly

cultivate a set of academic STM replicators because of networks of personnel exchange

between IBM and various universities – some replicators were professors taking

sabbaticals in Zurich, some were academics Rohrer had known from his own sabbaticals

10 G. Binnig and H. Rohrer, “The Scanning Tunneling Microscope,” Scientific American 253, no. 2 (1985): 50-6 and G. Binnig and H. Rohrer, “Scanning Tunneling Microscopy - From Birth to Adolescence,” Reviews of Modern Physics 59, no. 3 (1987): 615-625.

5

at universities, and some were people who had been postdocs at IBM or currently had

students serving postdoctoral appointments there.11

Similarly, interest in the STM grew within IBM and Bell Labs not because it

could solve commercially-relevant problems, but because it could generate credible

knowledge within academic disciplines such as physics and surface science.12 Accolades

from an academic audience – evidenced by standing-room-only crowds at American

Physical Society meetings, awarding of the Nobel Prize to Binnig and Rohrer in 1986,

and the growth of academic STM – were largely the aim of IBM’s STM program.

Moreover, prestige within a hot, new instrumental community like STM in turn allowed

IBM to recruit the best graduate students as postdocs and junior researchers – exactly the

people who built the second and third generations of IBM’s tunneling microscopes.

Today, some of those same people have returned IBM’s investment by becoming the

leading figures in nanotechnology research – securing Big Blue’s reputation and

intellectual property in what is, at last, a commercially important area.

Dynamics of Community

By 1986, then, the STM was no longer a precarious technology. Crucially, the

instrumental community beginning to take shape was dominated by corporate groups,

11 The source material for this study is a collection of interviews with 150+ probe microscopists conducted between 2000 and 2004. I will reference specific oral histories using an alphanumeric code listed in the appendix to this article. Information about the corporate-academic network of sabbaticals and hires came from, among others, <TB1>, <JM1>, and <PH1>.12 There is rich historical material on the large, corporate labs of the twentieth century: George Wise, Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of U.S. Industrial Research (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985); Michael Riordan and Lillian Hoddeson, Crystal Fire: The Birth of the Information Age (New York: Norton, 1997); Lillian Hartmann Hoddeson, “The roots of solid-state research at Bell Labs,” Physics Today (1977); Leonard Reich, The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Most relevant here are analyses of the tenuous relationship between research and production at IBM: Ross Knox Bassett, To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-Up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2002); Scott Knowles and Stuart W. Leslie, “’Industrial Versailles’ – Eero Saarinen’s Corporate Campuses for GM, IBM, and AT&T,” Isis 92: 1-33.

6

especially from IBM and Bell Labs. Early academic STMers, such as Paul Hansma at the

University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), Calvin Quate at Stanford, and John

Baldeschwieler at Caltech, were important contributors to the community; yet these

academics struggled to compete with corporate groups that were better-resourced and

(more importantly) were working alongside (or in competition with) numerous other

STMers in the same building. The tacit knowledge needed to build an STM flowed more

quickly at IBM and Bell Labs, allowing those organizations to rapidly expand their

commitment to STM.13

This meant the questions most important to the early STM community were those

of relevance to groups at IBM and Bell Labs. In particular, since Binnig and Rohrer had

been most successful in enrolling colleagues interested in the surface structure of metals

and semiconductors, those the community’s chosen materials. Indeed, a few surfaces

(especially of silicon) served as yardsticks for measuring whether a group had a working

STM or not – until a group’s STM had resolved single atoms of silicon, its builders could

not enter the top tier of STM builders.14 Other metal and semiconductor surfaces served

as milestones, with different groups racing each other to be the first to achieve atomic

resolution. Thus, interest in semiconductors – obviously strong at IBM and Bell Labs –

helped standardize activity in the community and allowed participants to judge each

other’s progress.

Initially, academics such as Quate and Baldeschwieler tried to keep up in these

races. Notably, Quate, located near both Silicon Valley and a cadre of former students

13 For treatments of the concept of tacit knowledge, especially as applied to instrument-building, see H. M. Collins, “The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics,” Sociology 9, no. 2 (May) (1975): 205-224; Harry Collins, “Tacit Knowledge, Trust, and the Q of Sapphire,” Social Studies of Science 31, no. 1 (2001): 71-86; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962).14 <JD2>, <PW2>.

7

and postdocs at IBM Almaden, had the most success in this area. Yet even he struggled

to develop familiarity in handling metals and semiconductors among his students and in

making his results credible to corporate STMers.15 Hansma, meanwhile, saw that IBM

and Bell Labs would continue to dominate the study of metal and semiconductor surfaces

and began carving alternative niches.16 Soon, Quate, Baldeschwieler, and other

academics followed suit, so that the STM community began to segregate into two

moieties – surface science STMers, dominated by (but not exclusive to) corporate and

national laboratories on the East Coast; and non-surface scientists, dominated by (but not

exclusive to) universities on the West Coast.17

These two moieties continued to share a great deal. Members of each

occasionally collaborated, and a few people moved from one to the other. More

importantly, the basic design of the STM was – at this stage – common to both, so design

innovations in one moiety could be transported to the other. This meant that

opportunities for co-presence – conferences and visits and sabbaticals between labs –

continued to be useful. Yet in a number of areas the two moieties established starkly

different styles. In particular, corporate STMers, coming out of a surface science

tradition that valued ultraclean samples and rigid control of conditions, built their STMs

for compatibility with ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) chambers. These chambers were large,

finicky, expensive, and time-consuming, so academic STMers developed alternatives

such as STM in air, in water, in oil, and in a variety of gases.18

15 <JD2>.16 <PH1>, <BD2>.17 Crucial members of the latter, predominantly academic, moiety were Quate’s allies within IBM: Dan Rugar, John Foster, and Tom Albrecht (former students who worked at IBM Almaden); Kumar Wickramasinghe (a former postdoc, later at IBM Yorktown); and Gerd Binnig (who took a sabbatical at Stanford in 1985-6).18 <CP1>, <PH1>.

8

Freed from the constraints of UHV and the need to please surface scientists,

academic STMers moved to a radically open-ended, sometimes chaotic mode of

experimentation. They saw that corporate surface science STM had succeeded by

appealing to specific disciplinary audiences and by orienting to a few yardstick materials

by which members of the community could be measured, and sought out new audiences

and yardstick materials of their own. It was unclear, though, which audiences might

accept the STM, and how the STM should be adapted to achieve acceptance. Thus,

academics like Quate and Hansma encouraged their students to quickly build a wide

variety of microscopes and to playfully use them to characterize haphazard materials –

leaves of houseplants, polaroids, bone from ribeye steaks, ice, the electrochemistry of

Coke versus Pepsi, etc.19 This bricolage fit well with these groups’ shoestring operation

(in contrast to the corporate groups) and extended even into microscope-building: the

Baldeschwieler group made STM probes from pencil leads, for instance, while the

Hansma group made AFM tips from hand-crushed pawn shop diamonds, glued to tin foil

cantilevers with brushes made from their own eyebrow hairs.

Yet such indiscipline could damage STM’s acceptance by new disciplinary

audiences, since the microscope-builders did not know how to prepare samples and

interpret images in ways that would be credible to, for example, biologists,

electrochemists, or materials scientists. Thus, Quate, Hansma, and other academic

STMers began bringing representatives (postdocs or young professors) from potential

new disciplinary audiences in to work with their students, learn how to use the

microscope, show the group how to prepare samples, and then proselytize for the

technique within their home community. Often, these people took a microscope with

19 <CP1>, <JN1>.

9

them when they left, or founded their own microscope-building group, and used their

knowledge of probe microscopy as a tool for gaining prestige among disciplinary

colleagues and securing tenure from their universities.20

Thus, the differences between the two moieties were as much about pedagogy and

career arc as they were about samples, designs, and audience. In groups such as Quate’s

and Hansma’s (mirrored, in part, by their collaborators’ groups), graduate students were

trained to build instruments quickly and collaboratively, to think primarily about novel

design rather than use; postdocs, meanwhile, were trained to develop new uses out of

those designs, and to integrate a new technology into an established discipline – STM for

biology or materials science or electrochemistry. In the corporate labs, postdocs, too,

underwent a kind of training – in a position of constant oversight by colleagues and

managers with the expertise and power to judge their work and affect their careers,

corporate postdocs learned to build and use STMs geared specifically to institutional

needs. Thus, corporate surface science STMs all looked relatively similar and were used

to look at the same handful of samples – though with enough variation to demonstrate

their builders’ personal qualities of initiative, creativity, and experimental ingenuity.21

In other words, the instrumental community growing around the STM included

elements of pedagogy at all participating sites, rather than just in the academic groups –

the STM was a technology for turning young researchers into full-fledged scientists as

much as a new technique for characterizing materials. Analysts of academic capitalism

should keep this in mind – universities have no monopoly on training in science, and the

20 <AG1>, <HG1>, <JN1>. The propagation of a technique through the “cascade” of postdocs and collaborators away from one of the centers of an instrumental community is described in David Kaiser, Drawing Things Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).21 <BW2>.

10

paths of pedagogy often seamlessly cross from the academic to the corporate world.

Moreover, in this particular case the pedagogical uses of the STM encouraged a wider

division of labor in the instrumental community. Because corporate postdocs were

promoted based on their ability to integrate the STM with surface science, graduate

students building STMs were instead encouraged to expand the instrument’s capabilities

into new areas. Corporations did, indeed, “influence” the direction of academic research

here; but whereas many critics decry the constrictive, harmful effects of corporate

influence, in this case corporate actors encouraged academics to adopt a diversity of

approaches and an expansive outlook.

Building and Buying

In this sense, pedagogy drove the two moieties of early STM apart; yet in a

variety of ways, corporate and academic participants were inseparable, particularly

around practices of building microscopes and finding samples to characterize. Until

1986, all probe microscopes were “home-built” in that they were put together by the

groups that were using them. Yet home-built instruments were not made entirely from

scratch – some components were made by hand, but most were bought from commercial

suppliers. STM designs were strongly shaped by the commercial availability of

components such as op amps and probe materials; but STM builders were also active

consumers. They took commercial products and adapted them for unforeseen uses and

negotiated with suppliers for equipment (vacuum chambers, piezoelectric crystals, video

output devices, etc.) modified for their specific applications.22 Some suppliers, such as

22 Much recent history of technology has focused on the active role of users. For consumers’ adaptations of artifacts for uses that manufacturers were unaware of, or even opposed, see Ronald Kline and Trevor Pinch, “Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” Technology and Culture 37, no. October (1996): 763-95. For users’ pressure on companies (often – as in instrumental communities – through threats to form their own cooperatives or firms), see Claude S. Fischer, America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940 (Berkeley: University of California

11

Burleigh (a piezoceramic maker in upstate New York) modified their products, using the

advice of prominent STMers, so that they could sell the modified items specifically for

the STM market.23 That is, professors were crucial both as consumers and producers.

Most favorable analyses of academic capitalism have focused on academics as producers,

with a view to stimulating professorial start-up companies; yet universities may find that

the best way to gain a stake in an instrumental community is by encouraging professors

to be smart, savvy, active consumers who have leverage with manufacturers both through

their expertise and their potential for building their own product (or even starting a

competing firm).

In a number of indirect and often counter-intuitive ways, commerce supplied the

infrastructure of knowledge and standardization needed to make the STM community

grow. Information about sources of reliable components and materials was a major topic

of “gossip” among early STM builders. Those who had built working instruments

recommended particular brands to new members of the community; and those

newcomers, anxious to make up for lost time, rarely questioned their predecessors’

advice. Old-timers gladly gave newcomers blueprints and recommendations on

suppliers, so that STM-building came to resemble doing a project from Popular

Mechanics. Brands became an important carrier of the tacit knowledge of microscope-

building, and STM-building became standardized through STMers’ nearly ritualistic

allegiance to those brands, even when the technical rationale for the brand disappeared.

For instance, IBM’s STMers used a trademarked rubber called Viton (from Dupont) to

Press, 1992). For an overview of different kinds of user activity, see the essays in Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch, eds., How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).23 <DF1>.

12

dampen vibration, because Viton could survive ultrahigh vacuum.24 Later, as IBM’s

blueprints disseminated, Viton became a hallmark of tunneling microscopy, even in

academic STMs used in air or fluid, not vacuum.25

A commercial infrastructure also helped STMers standardize the materials they

characterized. As Daniel Lee Kleinman has noted, this kind of corporate “influence” on

research is pervasive but indirect.26 Yet tapping into the right commercial infrastructure

can be crucial to growing an instrumental community and ensuring the credibility of its

members’ expertise – reliable, cheap commercial sources of materials give newcomers

easy access to research, and give the rest of the community a yardstick by which to

measure newcomers’ progress. Among corporate surface science STMers, this yardstick

was provided by a few key metal and semiconductor samples on which newcomers had to

prove their machines. When academic STMers designed microscopes for use in air and

water, they needed alternative yardstick materials. Gold, paraffin, and graphite vied for

the job; but graphite won out partly because ultrapure samples could be obtained

cheaply.27 Union Carbide used graphite to make monochromators for neutrons, an

application requiring extraordinarily pure samples – hence, they rejected large amounts of

slightly imperfect graphite still pure enough for STMers. The Quate group heard about

this and alerted other academic groups who then called Union Carbide’s graphite man,

Arthur Moore, to get cheap, standardized samples. Soon, the STM community was

24 <CG1>, <RT1>, <VE1>.25 For similar instances of practices spreading through an experimental community through transmission of knowledge about particular brands, see Kathleen Jordan and Michael Lynch, “The dissemination, standardization, and routinization of a molecular biological technique,” Social Studies of Science 28, no. 5-6 (1998): 773-800.26 Daniel Lee Kleinman, Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003).27 <AG1>.

13

awash in graphite, such that talks about that material finally outnumbered talks on

semiconductors at the annual STM conferences.

Sometimes, the industrial relevance of materials was a more direct influence

acting on academic microscopists, feeding back into the designs of their instruments. Yet

the arrow of corporate-academic influence here was dramatically non-linear. Cal Quate,

for instance, framed his STM work within Stanford’s long tradition of industrial ties and

his own involvement in developing acoustic microscopy in the ’70s as a non-destructive

characterization tool for manufacturing.28 Non-destructive testing held tremendous

promise for microelectronics, where chips are inspected throughout manufacturing yet

where traditional tools (especially electron microscopy) require breaking and discarding

expensive silicon wafers. Quate moved into STM believing it could be the next

generation non-destructive evaluation tool; and he was quickly followed by his former

students and postdocs at IBM.29

STM, though, requires a conducting (metal or semiconductor) sample, whereas

most microelectronic materials have an insulating oxide layer. Indeed, controlled growth

of oxides is crucial to turning silicon wafers into integrated circuits. This was

unproblematic for corporate surface scientists tasked with generating basic knowledge

about materials like silicon and gallium arsenide. Yet STM’s restriction to conducting

materials blocked its use in non-destructive testing and hindered movement into fields

other than surface science. Those who wanted to carve interdisciplinary niches for STM

saw its sample constraints as suffocating; chief among these were Gerd Binnig (an IBM

28 <JF1>, <DR1>, <MK1>. See C. F. Quate, “Acoustic Microscopy - Recollections,” IEEE Transactions On Sonics and Ultrasonics 32, no. 2 (1985): 132-135 for a brief description of scanning acoustic microscopy at Stanford.29 Quate’s optimism for STM derived from its ultrahigh resolution and the fact that (ideally) the STM tip does not touch (and thereby mar) the sample surface.

14

employee but not a surface scientist) and Cal Quate (and his former students and postdocs

at IBM). So when IBM allowed Binnig to take a sabbatical at Stanford in 1985-6, he and

Quate pushed past the STM to invent the AFM – which, because it uses interatomic

forces rather than tunneling to sense height, can map insulating materials. Thus, Quate

positioned his research much further downstream in IBM’s manufacturing cycle than

most of IBM’s own STMers and, together, IBM and Stanford dramatically shifted the

world of academic and corporate probe microscopy.

Commercialization and Gray Markets

What we’ve seen so far, then, are the more intricate, unglamorous ways corporate

and academic actors are linked within an instrumental community – through pedagogy,

through institutional politics, through commercial infrastructures, through tacit

knowledge. Most of relationships I’ve outlined thus far are not the ones that exercise

proponents and critics of academic capitalism – large corporate buy-ins to academic

departments, professors keeping research secret so they can patent it, corporations and

universities colluding to suppress unfavorable results.

One topic central to the academic capitalism debate will occupy the rest of this

paper – the commercialization of academic research and the founding of professorial

start-up companies. Yet I will show that commercialization only happens when it helps

participants position themselves within an instrumental community; and that the

commercialization process is not sudden and dramatic, but built slowly and quietly from

the kinds of practices I have described thus far.

The proximate basis for commercialization of probe microscopy was the desire on

the part of elite STMers to grow a larger community in which their groups would be

15

centers of expertise.30 This desire was strong among both corporate and academic

groups, though the motivations differed in the two moieties. At IBM and (to a lesser

extent) Bell Labs, research managers wanted to increase the number of in-house STM

groups, so as to keep the center of the STM community within the corporation.

Academics like Quate and Hansma wanted to grow the STM (and AFM) community

because they were looking for new applications and audiences, and because they wanted

to build a critical mass committed to non-surface science probe microscopy.

Thus, the stimulus to (a kind of) commercialization existed in both the corporate

and academic environments, as did the practices and knowledge from which this proto-

commercialization could be constructed. Both Bell Labs and IBM, for instance, built

something like an internal free market for tunneling microscopy, with multiple groups in

different parts of the building set to work on very similar tasks and compete for the

attention of senior managers. But both companies also developed an infrastructure for

STM research that allowed groups to get up to speed very quickly. For instance, Bell

Labs housed several (varying between two and four) STMs in an old tractor shed on the

edge of its property; there, microscope builders could very quickly trade ideas, materials,

blueprints, and software – very much in the same way that Quate’s students worked on

multiple microscopes at once and cannibalized parts from one project to another.31

IBM took the internal STM market/infrastructure to even greater lengths. IBM

had been first into STM, yet it took other IBM groups just as long – almost two years in

30 This analysis resonates with the early works of so-called actor-network theory: Michel Callon, “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay,” in Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, ed. John Law (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); and Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).31 <JG3>, <BS1>.

16

some cases – as everyone else to replicate the Zurich instrument. Thus, senior

management cast about for ways to package the tacit knowledge of instrument-building

and reduce replication time. The preferred strategy was to make semi-standardized,

batch-produced STM packages available to its researchers.32 The first was the “Blue

Box” designed by Othmar Marti, a Swiss graduate student doing doctoral work at IBM

Zurich.33 The Blue Box was primarily an electronics package – researchers constructed

the hardware themselves, often using the Zurich team’s designs. STM electronics

presented a significant challenge – complicated feedback circuitry brings the probe to the

surface, reads out and controls the tunnel current, and rasters the tip without crashing.

Later, the success of the Blue Box in allowing newcomers to work around these

difficulties inspired a more ambitious effort at IBM Yorktown. There, Joe Demuth,

manager of an STM group, assigned his postdocs to work with Yorktown’s Central

Scientific Services shop to develop and batch-produce complete STMs to “sell” to other

Yorktowners.34

By 1990, 10 to 20 of these CSS STM’s were in use at Yorktown and the nearby

Hawthorne facility; some also traveled to academic groups when postdocs left to become

professors.35 Yorktown management encouraged use of the CSS STM by making its

purchase a zero-cost budget item. Still, groups had to invest labor – usually a postdoc –

to make the microscope productive. This confronted its postdoc users with a dilemma.

They needed to creatively solve technical problems and display initiative to managers to

advance to staff positions; and advancement also required navigating competitive

32 See Philip Scranton, Endless Novelty: Specialty Production and American Industrialization, 1865-1925 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997) for an analysis of batch-production.33 <OM1>, <JG1>.34 <BH1>, <RT1>, <JD2>.35 <DB1>.

17

institutional politics, where groups worked in parallel on similar projects and were

rewarded relative to each other. Postdocs using the CSS STM found they were viewed as

partisans of Demuth’s style of microscopy. To avoid alienating other factions at

Yorktown, and display their own experimental prowess, they redesigned and rebuilt large

parts of the CSS instrument.36 That is, the organization of Yorktown research kept the

CSS microscope from turning into a widely-commercialized black box.37

The CSS STM was a kind of commercialization of tunneling microscopy, for the

internal IBM market. Had Yorktown culture promoted formation of start-ups or

collaborations with instrument manufacturers, the CSS microscope could have become

the first mass-marketed STM. After the early ’90s recession made IBM leaner and more

outward-looking, Big Blue did market an AFM – Yorktown’s “SXM” – to the

semiconductor industry. This exception, though, proves the rule. The SXM was

invented by a former Quate postdoc, and owed much to Quate’s style of work. Yet

commercialization was hindered by its IBM origins – though capable of astonishing

resolution of the sidewalls of integrated circuit features, it was too finicky and unreliable

36 <JV1>, <BW2>.37 For the classic analysis of the instrument as “black box” (i.e., a technology that takes over epistemic responsibility from the experimenter by virtue of the inaccessibility of its workings), see Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2 ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986). My point here is that the “blackness” of the black box is continually reshaped in order to draw boundaries or form networks within an instrumental community. Commercialization can be a gradual process of making the black box less “translucent” and more less open to intervention; see Kathleen Jordan and Michael Lynch, “The Sociology of a Genetic Engineering Technique: Ritual and Rationality in the Performance of a "Plasmid Prep",” in The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in the Twentieth-Century Life Sciences, ed. Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 77-114. At the same time, the presentation of a commercial microscope architecture as “closed” (probe microscopists’ term for a black box) or “open” (their term for translucent) is a political move designed to orient that microscope toward a particular market niche/subdisciplinary audience. See Cyrus C. M. Mody, “How Probe Microscopists Became Nanotechnologists,” in Discovering the Nanoscale, ed. Davis Baird, Alfred Nordmann, and Joachim Schummer (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004), 119-133.

18

(it needed a Ph.D. to operate) to attract an industry devoted to tools kept in continuous

operation by relatively unskilled workers.38

In contrast, commercialization was more successful from academic STM and

AFM groups largely because of the outward-looking, multidisciplinary style they had

cultivated in order to avoid competing with the more insular and disciplined surface

scientists at IBM and Bell Labs. People like Binnig, Rohrer, Quate, and Hansma were

extraordinarily open with newcomers, freely offering them blueprints and advice in order

to build a critical mass of non-surface science probe microscopists. Thus, the circulation

of materials and ideas – a kind of “gray market” – became the norm in academic STM

and AFM.39 Software, in particular, passed from group to group, and student cohort to

cohort within research groups. Both academic and corporate groups wrote code that they

gave to collaborators, strengthening their group’s position in the instrumental community,

and ensuring access to collaborators’ modifications to the code.40 Sometimes code was

given for free, sometimes at nominal cost; profit was not the motive for dissemination.

The most well-traveled hardware innovation was the microfabricated AFM

cantilever. One perceived defect of early AFMs was that probes were laboriously hand-

made from small strips of aluminum foil with a tiny sliver of diamond glued on one side

and a tiny shard of glass on the other.41 Although these cantilevers could yield exquisite

AFM images, each required considerable time and training, and results were so particular

to one cantilever and its maker that images taken with different cantilevers were difficult

38 <KW1>, <DB2>, <JG3>.39 Davis Baird, “Scientific Instrument Making, Epistemology, and the Conflict between Gift and Commodity Economies,” Ludus Vitalis Supplement 2 (1997): 1-16.40 <MS1>.41 Diamonds were used as tips because their sharp points were less likely to wear down from repeated use than other materials. The glass on the back of the cantilever acted as a small mirror, bouncing laser light into a photodiode; the position of the reflected beam in the photodiode indicated how much the cantilever was bending (i.e., a proxy for how much the surface was pulling or pushing on the diamond tip).

19

to compare. Hand-made cantilevers sufficed early on, when every image was new and

spectacular; but as the technique matured, AFMers sought standardization. The Quate

group delivered this by integrating itself with microlithography expertise at Stanford and

around Silicon Valley. Over several years, Quate shared students with other electrical

engineering professors at Stanford, allowing them to learn AFM before going to the clean

rooms to learn to pattern and etch silicon into small, standardized batches of cantilevers.

By 1990, Quate began sending surplus probes to friends and collaborators, sometimes so

he and his students could share authorship of collaborators’ papers. Quickly, Quate-type

probes became essential to the AFM infrastructure.42

At the same time, Quate and Hansma prepared the ground for commercialization

through their practice of bringing in collaborators from a variety of disciplines. On the

one hand, these collaborators would found their own STM or AFM groups and

effectively “advertise” for the technique, building interest – what would become markets

– in probe microscopy among biologists, electrochemists, mineralogists, and so forth. On

the other hand, within the Quate and Hansma groups graduate students learned the art of

dealing with potential “customers” from other disciplines and designing microscopes

with their needs in mind. The leap from these practices to outright commercialization

was very small.

In the end, the first to make this leap was a Quate student, Doug Smith, who

founded the Tunneling Microscope Company in 1986. Notably, though, there was

wariness about this commercialization on both the supply and demand sides. Smith had

only one “employee”, a fellow student who helped put together scanners, and he recruited

customers by word of mouth. He viewed the company less as an ongoing enterprise than

42 <TA1>, <MK1>, <BD2>.

20

as a way to sweeten the hardships of graduate school – a well-circulated story is that he

sold just enough microscopes to buy a BMW before taking a postdoc. Yet despite the

small size of this venture, Quate himself was ambivalent and pushed Smith to separate

scholarship and business more cleanly – “Dr. Quate said ‘graduate students work, eat,

and sleep, and most of the time they go hungry.’ You can’t have a company and be a

graduate student at the same time, so Doug had to finish up and move out”.43

On the demand side, Smith’s customers were in much the same position as the

postdocs at IBM who were presented with the Blue Box or CSS STM. They saw a

commercial STM as a way to quickly catch up and join a hot new instrumental

community; yet they knew that if they were to join the elite of that community, they

would have to demonstrate instrument-building virtuosity, and gear their STM to

specific, arcane applications. Thus, like the batch-produced IBM instruments, Smith’s

commercial STMs were more starter kits than black-boxed devices. To use the

instrument, customers needed to construct much of it on their own.44 All Smith sold was

the microscope “head” – the piezoelectric scanner, tip, base, and vibration-isolating

stacks of Viton. Customers built the electronics themselves, customizing the microscope

for their own applications.

In debates about academic capitalism, the commodification of academic expertise

is usually treated as an undifferentiated matter, as are the consumers of that expertise.

Yet it should be clear from the STM and AFM story that the symbolic elements of the

“product” sold by members of an instrumental community is crucial and ever-changing.

Today, when customers by an off-the-shelf AFM, they generally are buying all of the

43 <MK1>.44 <JF1>, <NB1>, <RC1>.

21

expertise of microscope-building so that they won’t have to develop it themselves. Early

on that expertise was exactly what customers of commercial STMs did not want to buy;

instead, they were purchasing time and membership in a community and the opportunity

to develop their own instrument-building expertise. Consumers wanted to be on an equal

footing with producers, whether in a commercial or academic setting. Thus, there was no

“academic ethos” that was corrupted by these early ventures into batch production; yet

neither was there a “corporate ethos” demanding that firms make money from the STMs

their employees had built. Rather, in both settings it was the culture of the instrumental

community that shaped the meanings (and timetable) of commercialization.

Digital Instruments

Commercialization of the STM, then, was a process accomplished through a

series of minute, unremarkable steps – very little separated the home-built STM, made

with parts ordered from catalogs, often using blueprints given by colleagues, from the

STMs sold by Smith and (internally) IBM. The next step was only slightly more

dramatic – the founding of organizations dedicated wholly to manufacturing and selling

probe microscopes. Critics and proponents of academic capitalism both lay heavy

emphasis on the founding of start-ups; it is seen both as the best means to extract profit

from academic work, and as the ultimate distraction from the university’s pedagogical

mission. Yet both these views neglect the realities of how start-ups operate within an

instrumental community. Profit is often the least visible (and least successful) motivation

for founding a start-up; and start-ups often continue and enhance the pedagogical culture

of an instrumental community rather than despoiling it.

22

Digital Instruments, the first true start-up in the probe microscopy community,

offers vivid illustration that the most successful start-ups may be those that build outward

from an instrumental community’s gray markets and culture of circulating people, ideas,

and materials, rather than bringing a management-driven, profit-focused ideology into

that community. DI was the brainchild of Virgil Elings, one of Paul Hansma’s colleagues

in the physics department at UC Santa Barbara. Elings first contact with the STM

community, though, was Niko Garcia, a visiting Spanish academic with close ties to IBM

Zurich. After talking with Garcia and Hansma and attending the 1986 STM Conference

in Spain, Elings saw a market for an off-the-shelf STM and offered to co-found a

company with Hansma. Hansma was even more wary than Quate of commerce

encroaching on his lab’s activities, so he declined; but he gave Elings the same advice

and schematics he made available to other STMers.45 With this, Elings and his son built a

prototype in their garage and entered it in a junior high science fair (where it took last

place, since, as the judges pointed out, “everybody knows you can’t see atoms”).46

For Elings, building the prototype was a chance to make sure the Hansma design

was commercializable, but also to test – and discard – many axioms of STM-building that

accrued since 1981. Elings saw STM builders’ trade secrets as geared to instruments that

were finicky and difficult to operate; and he saw possession of these trade secrets as

limiting the STM community to those deemed “serious” enough to build their own

microscopes. Elings wanted, eventually, to make STMs specifically for non-builders

who demanded a simple-to-operate black box. Thus, he delighted in “debunking” the

STM-builders’ recipes by creating a more streamlined, easy-to-use, more durable tool.

45 <PH1>, <VE1>.46 <MT1>, <VE1>.

23

Elings wanted DI to be the first to market a commercial microscope by the annual

STM Conference in 1987. Though his plan was always to sell a computer-controlled

microscope (hence Digital Instruments), his former student (and DI co-founder), Gus

Gurley, was brought in too late to finish all the code in time. Instead, Elings marketed

the analog Nanoscope I as DI’s first product. Probe microscopists from this era – both

builders and buyers – remember their first acquaintance with the Nanoscope as a turning

point. Now, for the first time, researchers could join the STM community without having

to build any part of their microscope. Moreover, unlike Smith’s clients, DI’s customers

didn’t need to have personal ties to the community; people could (and did) simply call up

Digital Instruments and order a microscope.

Yet though it marked an important shift, the Nanoscope I still illustrates the

gradual, emergent character of commercialization. Digital retained much of the flavor of

a lab like Quate’s or Hansma’s; and Elings only slowly came to sell a more and more

complete microscope, to rely less and less on customers’ design expertise, and to view

money as the primary token of exchange. Like the CSS STM and Doug Smith’s

instrument, the Nanoscope I was more a kit than a full-fledged, black-boxed research

tool. Indeed, Elings now calls this era at DI the “toy business” – both for the Nanoscope

I’s immature design, and for its lack of “serious” applications.47 In following Hansma’s

lead, Elings designed an air STM, rather than the expensive, narrow-niche ultrahigh

vacuum instruments used at IBM and Bell Labs. This made sense in opening up a broad

market, since few disciplines were willing to deal with or pay for ultrahigh vacuum

(which, in any case, ruined samples relevant to everyone except surface scientists). Yet it

was unclear in the ’80s what air STM could be used for, or what the images it produced

47 <DC1>, <VE1>.

24

meant. Only in 1991-2 did a consensus develop that air STM was not, in fact, relying on

tunneling for its contrast mechanism, and that many well-publicized air STM images

(particularly of DNA) were erroneous. As a result, most air STMers abandoned the

technique and followed Quate and Hansma to AFM, usually by buying one of DI’s

newly-available “Multimodes” (capable of running both STM and AFM).

Thus, the Nanoscope I and other air STMs had little rigorous application, though

until 1992 it seemed possible such applications would appear if researchers could buy

cheap commercial STMs and adapt them for unforeseen purposes. The Nanoscope I was

a ‘toy’ because it was meant to be superseded, and because its buyers were envisioned as

instrument-savvy and willing to experiment playfully with their new device until

promising applications were found (not unlike DI’s engineers themselves). This

assumption of similarity between designers and users allowed new designs and

applications to flow in from the market and inform production of the more black-boxed,

all-digital Nanoscope II. Hence innovation came rapidly because participants in the

probe-microscopy field comprised an experienced and critical body. In fact, researchers

who had previously built their own STMs formed a small but elite group of DI’s early

customers.

The assumed similarities of DI’s engineers and early customers also reinforced its

self-image as a freewheeling startup that could rely on its users to make up for its lack of

marketing and customer service. Elings had no sales force – he simply advertised in

Physics Today – (“$25,000 for atomic resolution”) and orders came in. Instruments were

FedExed to buyers, who put them together and got the microscope running on their own.

Despite this minimal marketing and customer service (and limited product utility), the toy

25

business was successful. An advertisement from 1990 estimates that in the first three

years, DI sold more than 300 Nanoscopes at $25,000 to $35,000 each.48 The probe

microscopy community expanded quickly, and the center of gravity shifted as well; as

more people bought instruments, AFM and air STM began to outweigh UHV STM, and

the corporate labs became less dominant. High demand created a waiting list, prompting

a policy that researchers who wanted a microscope quickly could promise to name DI’s

founders or employees as co-authors on papers generated with Digital’s products.

DI recognized that to create a market among scientists and engineers, it had to

demonstrate its trustworthiness as a producer both of microscopes and of knowledge.49

Through its customers, DI associated credible facts with its instrument and its employees,

enticing consumers of those facts to join the probe microscopy community by becoming

consumers of its products. Notably, because the community still largely operated on a

gray market, Digital had to rely heavily on barter – such as trading waiting list position

for authorship. Such trades gradually diminished as the probe microscopy community

became more commercial; indeed, “commercialization” often signifies the narrowing of

the varieties of exchange as a technology stabilizes, rather than the encroachment of a

peculiarly corporate ethic into the academy.50

The Start-Up Era

48 From FASEB Journal, v.4, n. 13 (1990), p. 1.49 This analysis draws on Latour and Woolgar’s concept of the “cycle of credit”, but from the perspective of the instrument seller, rather than the buyer. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2 ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).50 There is a complicated relationship between “commercialization” and “stabilization” of a technology; for analyses of stabilization, see Wiebe E. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, Trevor Pinch, and Geof Bowker, Inside Technology (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1995) and Paul Rosen, “The Social Construction of Mountain Bikes: Technology and Postmodernity in the Cycle Industry,” Social Studies of Science 23 (1993): 479-513.

26

The end of the toy business roughly corresponded to the end of DI’s solitude in

commercial probe microscopy. By 1990, the probe microscopy community was growing

dramatically, fueled by (and fueling) the appearance of a rash of new STM and AFM

manufacturers. Their products and strategies differed considerably – some competed

with Digital Instruments for the general-purpose microscope market, some targeted

specific disciplinary niches, some made easy-to-operate black boxes, some built “open

architectures” for researchers who wanted to tinker with and modify the device. Some

survived, others floundered. All were small companies, mostly founded out of

universities specifically to make probe microscopes, though a few drifted to that product

line. No big firms made more than desultory attempts to sell STMs or AFMs – though a

few (Hitachi, IBM, Perkin Elmer) started down that road.

Crucially, these start-ups were founded for a deliciously diverse set of reasons.

Most debates about academic capitalism simply assume that, under the current set of

incentives and stimuli, professorial start-ups are an inevitability – for good or ill, the

inducements for professors to commercialize their work is simply irresistible. Maybe so,

but this assumption looks less reliable when the contingent and often counter-intuitive

reasons why people found start-ups are examined. Digital Instruments provides a striking

example. DI and Elings thrived at UCSB’s disreputable margins. When he arrived in the

late ’60s as a brash, confrontational professor, it was hoped Elings would build UCSB’s

reputation in high energy physics. His swagger, though, led to conflict with his

department, which sidelined him into running their less prestigious Master’s of Scientific

Instrumentation program – a lucrative but unloved backwater.51 Uncowed, Elings

51 <JW1>.

27

transformed the master’s program into his personal empire and a fountainhead for patents

and start-up companies.

In the master’s program students from many educational backgrounds (biologists,

engineers, even psychology majors) learned to build all kinds of measurement

technologies – not just research instruments but also industrially-relevant meters and

tools. Initially, Elings relied on orthodox classroom instruction; but soon, he drifted

toward an alternative method that prized tacit over formal knowledge, participation over

instruction. Instead of textbooks and lectures, he simply connected students with

professors on campus who needed instruments built and let them learn by doing.

Because student projects were based on finding solutions to real problems faced by local

researchers, they often yielded technologies Elings could market to those researchers’

subdisciplines. Students learned how to understand customers’ needs and design

technologies to answer them. This made former master’s students the most important

source of early employees for all Elings’ ventures, especially Digital Instruments.

So UC Santa Barbara did, in a way, encourage creation of DI, though no school

would replicate their path. By sidelining a brilliant but difficult professor to the poorly-

regarded master’s program, they encouraged him to reject campus culture, denigrate

academically-instilled formal knowledge, and be receptive to the commercial possibilities

of the tacit knowledge his students accrued. Moreover, in making clear Elings’

commercial ventures hindered his academic career, the UCSB physicists made it more

likely his next enterprise – Digital Instruments – would be his bridge to leaving

academia. Tension between Elings and UCSB even smoothed technology transfer from

Hansma to DI, since Elings’ hostility toward academic researchers meant he rejected

28

Hansma’s designs until they had been engineered to look more like commercial products

than most home-built instruments.

Disgruntlement of a different kind also fueled both DI and some of its

competitors. Several of the early STM and AFM manufacturers were founded in the

heart of the West Coast military-industrial complex. Graduate students who had grown

accustomed to the picturesque surroundings and lifestyle of southern California often

sought employment nearby – usually with defense firms like Lockheed and Hughes. Yet

defense work galled many of these engineers, driving them back to probe microscopy.

Much of Elings’ early work-force came to DI for this reason; and in Los Angeles Paul

West, one of John Baldeschwieler’s former postdocs at Caltech, grew so frustrated with

defense work that he started his own probe microscopy company, Quanscan.

In several cases, start-ups positioned themselves relative to each other in ways

that mirrored the relationships between the academic groups with which they were

associated. Digital Instruments may not have been officially affiliated with the Hansma

group at first (indeed, even at the best of times, there was always some suspicion between

the two groups), and Elings was certainly proud of the ways the Nanoscope differed from

Hansma’s microscopes; but DI’s products bore an obvious genealogical kinship with

Hansma’s STMs and AFMs, and DI drew on Hansma’s reputation in the community. In

return, Hansma’s design innovations spread much farther and faster than those of

professors not affiliated with a start-up. Thus, Hansma’s peers in the probe microscopy

elite were more enthusiastic than he about helping former personnel found start-ups. For

instance, two Stanford postdocs, Sung-Il Park and Sang-Il Park (no relations) started Park

Scientific Instruments in 1989 with Quate’s help and quickly became the major employer

29

of Quate group veterans; PSI’s designs, even more than DI’s, were ported straight from

the academic group, and the research in new applications conducted there often picked up

where Quate’s own research left off.52 Commercialization is the politics of academic

research by other means.

Similarly, just as Baldeschwieler’s groups always lagged behind Quate’s and

Hansma’s in popularizing its discoveries and innovations, the company he helped Paul

West found, Quanscan, lagged behind DI and Park Scientific in marketing

commercialized versions of the Caltech designs. As Bourdieu might put it, relations

defined by intellectual capital in the academic field mapped onto relations of commercial

capital in the start-up field.53 These relations could sometimes be based on collaboration

as much as competition. For instance, Stuart Lindsay, a physics professor at Arizona

State University, had been an early collaborator of Hansma’s, one of the first in the long

series of visitors to UCSB who helped adapt the STM to new applications and

subdisciplines – in Lindsay’s case, for electrochemistry and for biological materials.

Once Hansma’s designed were commercialized by DI, Lindsay pressed Elings to adapt

the Nanoscope for Lindsay’s colleagues in electrochemistry and biophysics – to no avail,

since Elings was usually hostile to adapting the Nanoscope for anyone (DI had a strict

no-custom-instruments policy), especially when the suggestion came from outside the

company. So Lindsay founded his own company, Molecular Imaging, to make

attachments to the Nanoscope that would make it more compatible with electrochemistry

and biophysics – attachments which DI grudgingly distributed for a few years until it

developed its own competing line.54

52 <DB3>, <FG1>, <JN1>.53 Pierre Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” in John Richardson, ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 241-258.54 <SL1>.

30

Lindsay’s other motivations for founding a start-up say a great deal about how

commercialization and pedagogy fit together in instrumental communities. Long before

Molecular Imaging, his group – like Hansma’s at UCSB – had become a center for

distributing blueprints and (especially) software to new STM builders. One of Lindsay’s

technicians, Uwe Knipping, developed one of the first and most sophisticated computer-

controlled microscopes; Knipping’s software formed the basis for Lindsay’s academic

network-building, but it also caught the eye of two local entrepreneurs, Larry and Darryl

McCormick, who founded a company, Angstrom Technology, to commercialize it.55

As it turned out, Knipping’s architecture was far too sophisticated for a

commercial instrument, and the enterprise failed. But Lindsay had gotten a taste for how

network-building in the academic domain might be enhanced by commercialization. So a

few years later when he happened on a former postdoc who was having trouble finding

work, Lindsay decided to built a new company – Molecular Imaging – around him as an

extension of the work going on at ASU.56 This is probably the classic – if woefully

understudied – story of commercialization: a professor’s technicians and graduate

students make a widget, then the professor’s colleagues call up asking for their own

widget (or blueprints thereof), a student start making batches of widgets in their garage,

and eventually – whether to help position the professor within that instrumental

community or to give lab personnel needed work – the widget-making is spun off as its

own kind of organization. Commercialization here makes the academic research more

streamlined and focused by being an extra bin in which to throw specific kinds of much-

needed people and community-building work.

55 <SL1>, <JA1>.56 <SL1>, <TJ1>.

31

In only a few cases were probe microscope start-ups inspired by the incentives to

commercialize and culture of entrepreneurialism so central to the debate about academic

capitalism. Paul West, for one, explicitly saw entrepreneurship as a challenge and path to

personal growth, and the Baldeschwieler group had a long history of spinning off

commercial enterprises.57 Similarly (but to a much lesser extent) the Parks and their

employees molded PSI in the image of Stanford’s tradition of commercialization, and

Quate’s particular tradition of sending former students to the most powerful firms in

Silicon Valley. Yet these start-ups’ success was seemingly in inverse proportion to the

entrepreneurial intent of their founding. Quanscan (and its successor company,

Topometrix) was always the most business-like – had the most venture capital money, the

most MBAs, the slickest advertising, etc. But these proved a drag on the company’s

fortunes – the bankers continually interfered in operations, the MBAs had trouble

understanding the values of an instrumental community that they had never participated

in, and the advertising alienated many potential customers.

Park Scientific, like DI, was a more rough-hewn affair – Sung-Il Park’s barber

was hired as the office manager, for instance, and the senior management were Quate

students with no business training.58 Indeed, the Parks carved a niche for their

instruments by cultivating an image of themselves as interested much more in technically

sweet innovations than in mundane moneymaking. As “gentleman scientists,” they could

speak as peers with other researchers and capture customers’ trust. Park Scientific gained

a reputation for making “builders’” instruments – well-crafted, reliable, with enough

idiosyncracies and innards showing to be reminiscent of a microscope made by a

57 <PW2>, <JB1>, <GA1>.58 <DB1>, <BP1>.

32

graduate student. Park was even willing to work with individual customers to build a

microscope for a specific application (something DI never did) – if the engineering

required a certain finesse. Yet ultimately this sapped the company. Park rode to some

success on the same hostility to management expertise as DI; but Digital ultimately won

out because (once the toy business was over) it displayed an almost equal hostility to the

expertise of its customers. Where Park was willing to relive the days of the Quate lab by

respecting the knowledge of foreign disciplines, DI made one type of microscope for

everyone, and hid the workings of that instrument completely from customers’ view.

This attitude allowed DI to break into the industrial market, where it could sell radically

more, and more expensive, microscopes to companies that usually wanted low-level

technicians to learn how to use the instrument in a day or two – market conditions for

which Park was wholly unprepared.

As much as DI eventually prospered by distancing itself from Hansma’s academic

model, though, the company’s success hinged equally on continual borrowings of culture,

people, and inventions between start-up and academic lab. By chance, these borrowings

were facilitated by Elings and Hansma’s convergence on similar pedagogical

philosophies. Both me saw tacit, rather than formal, knowledge as primary in instrument-

building – Elings because of his work in the instrumentation master’s program, Hansma

because the contours of the STM community had pushed him to encourage undisciplined

instrument-building rather than disciplined instrument-use. This shared emphasis on the

tacit meant both men took in people with diverse and unusual educational backgrounds:

junior high students, river guides, undergraduates, yoga instructors, retirees, psychology

majors, and historians.59 This diversity was unthinkable at other centers of probe

59 <HH1>, <JM3>, <DB2>, <MT1>, <BD2>, <PH1>.

33

microscopy. Orienting to tacit knowledge also meant both DI and the Hansma group

thrived on self-cultivating activities seemingly unrelated to technical matters; Hansma’s

group found technical inspiration in pastimes such as woodworking, meditation,

photography, yoga, river-rafting, etc; while DI held weekly “inventing sessions” where

employees brainstormed solutions to esoteric (i.e. non-AFM-relevant) technical questions

(e.g. “how do you make a self-balancing laundry machine”) to become better inventors

and hone their skills at weathering Elings’ intense skepticism.60

As members of DI and the Hansma group became aware of parallels between

their organizational styles, they appropriated these similarities to accelerate the two-way

flow of people, materials, designs, and knowledge. After the initial phase (when most DI

employees were Elings’ former master’s students), several Hansma graduates, postdocs,

and collaborators took high-ranking jobs at Digital. Individuals on both sides

collaborated to transform Hansma’s research into commercial products; for instance, the

Hansma AFM (on which DI’s fortunes eventually rested) was turned into a product

through negotiations between Barney Drake (Hansma’s technician) and James Massie (a

former Elings student) over which elements of the Hansma design were indispensable

and which were too finicky for anyone but the graduate students who built them.61 As

DI’s sales increased, the Hansma group kept its place at the forefront of the AFM

community through its steady supply of DI instruments and the ability of Hansma’s

students and postdocs to go up the road to DI to scavenge parts and advice.62 That is,

whatever his initial reservations about commercialization, Hansma came to see the

60 <JH1>, <DB2>, <PM1>.61 <BD2>, <JM3>.62 <JH1>.

34

partnership with DI as a way to position himself – intellectually and socially – within his

instrumental community.

In turn, once the “toy business” ended in the early ‘90s, Elings began to imitate

Hansma’s tactic of bringing in postdocs to guide instrument-builders’ efforts. DI built its

own group of researchers from biophysics, magnetics, and polymer chemistry, who (like

Hansma’s postdocs) worked with instrument-builders, developed and published on new

STM and AFM applications, and traveled to give talks and attend conferences to spread

word about the technique.63 Though DI was a profit-making venture, its success arose

partly from the Hansma group practices that it mirrored – doing research, publishing

articles, training and “graduating” employees. These practices were then widely

emulated by the other start-ups.

This kind of cultural/organizational parallelism from university to start-up is well-

documented in other fields of commercialization, especially biotechnology; there, it was

used to entice professors to exit the ivory tower, leading to trouble when professor-

entrepreneurs were reluctant to turn their companies from research to profit-making.

With STM and AFM, in contrast, corporate-academic isomorphism was successful less as

a deliberate strategy than as a contingent and emergent harmonization of practices. It

was a largely accidental outcome of the organization of this instrumental community that

Quate, Hansma, and other academics promoted a gray market of circulating people,

practices, and technologies that fostered successful commercialization.

Conclusion

So what does probe microscopy tell us about commercialization of academic

knowledge and the value of corporate-academic linkages? First, the development of

63 <SM2>, <MA1>.

35

probe microscopy shows how thoroughly – yet intricately and indirectly – the corporate

and academic worlds are connected. The locus of ‘academic research’ is much wider

than the university campus, just as the locus of ‘commerce’ is wider than the for-profit

business. Instrumental communities and other informal organizations are distributed

across academic and corporate institutions. Commercialization – the transformation of

academic research into commerce – is not a simple pipeline from university to firm.

Commercialization can play many roles within an instrumental community, and academic

research can be traded for many things other than money. Attempts, therefore, to directly

stimulate and accelerate the transformation of academic research into cash may well

backfire. As we have seen, it was the looser, indirect ties between corporate and

academic groups that fostered the growth of STM and AFM and encouraged startups to

emerge from universities, rather than direct pressure from corporations or overt

incentives from governments and universities.

Thus, proponents of academic entrepreneurialism should be wary of focusing too

narrowly on increased profit as the fruit of a commercialized university. As we’ve seen,

trading goes on all the time in instrumental communities; the token of exchange is usually

a mix of knowledge, prestige, personnel, time, materials, money, opportunity, etc. The

popularity of various forms of barter changes as the instrumental community changes;

commercialization can restrict some exchanges and make money-based trades more

prevalent. Few instrumental communities reach this point, though. Even within the

probe microscopy community, only the atomic force microscope and the magnetic force

microscope have been commercial successes; the STM, which provided the first product

for microscope manufacturers, was effective in training engineers to build microscopes,

36

but never found industrial application. The presence of gray markets in instrumentation

can enhance national economic growth over time; yet university administrators who hope

that this or that gray market can be converted into a profit-making start-up to enhance

local, short-term economic growth will almost always be disappointed.

Moreover, development of an entrepreneurial instrumental community may

require that its members be drafted from less profitable fields where commercialization

did not occur. The STM and AFM community, for instance, initially drew on its

members’ expertise in low-energy electron diffraction, sandwich tunnel junction

spectroscopy, and field ion microscopy – instrumental communities with poor records of

commercialization; later, STM and AFM pulled in participants from many fields (surface

science, biophysics, mineralogy, electrochemistry, polymer science – some more

commercialized than others) who aided groups like Quate’s and Hansma’s in their gray

market activities. Instrumental communities in which the cultural map is unconducive to

profit-making nevertheless provide the infrastructure and knowledge/labor pool for

communities in which profit may be enormous. Policy-makers should not think they can

predict which will be which; nor are they likely to succeed if they encourage only the one

at the expense of the other. Policy makers may be best advised to encourage professors

to foster gray markets within their instrumental communities – whether as consumers,

producers, or both. Gray market activities of trading research materials, people, and

components of technologies enlarge the outlook of academic research. By focusing on

the wider instrumental community surrounding a technology, we can see that the

university may actually be more influential in maintaining a pool of skeptical,

37

independent consumers who can threaten start-ups with the prospect of making their own

tools or even founding their own firms.

Finally, both opponents and supporters of corporate involvement in university life

have seized on grains of truth. Supporters have it right that corporate-academic linkages

are desirable, even necessary, for research and innovation. There was no golden age

when faculty operated independent of firms, pursuing disinterested research; knowledge

production in physics, engineering, and chemistry was always aided by faculty consulting

and trading of personnel and ideas. The oft-criticized commercialism of the “biotech

revolution” merely extended long-standing entrepreneurial practices into molecular

biology. The STM and AFM case does, however, give reason for opposing the notion

that universities should be run as businesses, squeezing profit where they can and

operating along the “rational” lines of modern management. The probe microscopy

community developed rapidly because participants could point to different institutional

poles – corporations, universities, national labs. At times, innovation occurred because

these poles were opposed – as when Hansma and Quate shifted from surface science and

UHV STM to new designs and applications. At other times, innovation occurred because

participants strung out hybrid forms between these poles – the gray market of software

trading, the CSS STM, and the “toy business”. Instrumental communities rely on a

variety of actors, contained in different kinds of institutions. If all these institutions are

run on the same highly-managed, profit-driven model, then the movement of people and

ideas, and the production of new technologies, will likely be hindered.

Appendix

38

Interviewees listed by alphanumeric, name, positions held over the period covered by the

interview, and date of the interview. All interviews conducted by the author.

AG1: Andy Gewirth: Hansma collaborator; University of Illinois; 6/26/01BD2: Barney Drake: Hansma group technician; UCSB; 10/18/01BH1: Bob Hamers: Yorktown researcher; University of Wisconsin; 5/9/01BP1: Becky Pinto: Stanford; Park Scientific; KLA-Tencor; 2/3/04BS1: Brian Swartzentruber: Bell Labs technician; University of Wisconsin; Sandia

National Laboratory; 1/10/03BW2: Bob Wolkow: IBM Yorktown; Bell Labs; NRC Canada; 5/22/01CG1: Christoph Gerber: IBM Zurich technician; 11/12/01CP1: Craig Prater: Hansma graduate student; Digital Instruments engineer; 3/19/01DB1: Dawn Bonnell: Yorktown postdoc; University of Pennsylvania; 2/26/01DB2: Dan Bocek: UCSB undergraduate; DI engineer; Asylum Research; 3/23/01DB3: David Braunstein: Stanford; Park Scientific; IBM San Jose; 4/3/01DC1: Don Chernoff: Sohio Research; Advanced Surface Microscopy; 9/5/01DF1: Dave Farrell: Burleigh Instruments; 5/29/01DR1: Dan Rugar: Quate student; Almaden researcher; 3/14/01FG1: Franz Giessibl: IBM Munich; Park Scientific; Uni Augsburg; 11/16/01GA1: Gary Aden: Topometrix executive; 3/12/01HG1: Hermann Gaub: Ludwig-Maximilians Universität; 11/14/01HH1: Helen Hansma: UCSB professor; 3/19/01JA1: John Alexander: Angstrom Technology; Park Scientific; KLA-Tencor; 10/15/01JB1: John Baldeschwieler: Caltech; 3/28/01JC2: Jason Cleveland: Hansma student; Digital Instruments; Asylum Research; 3/20/01JD2: Joe Demuth: Yorktown manager; 2/22/01JF1: John Foster: Quate student; Almaden researcher; 10/19/01JG1: Jim Gimzewski: IBM Zurich researcher; UCLA; 10/22/01JG3: Joe Griffith: Bell Labs; 2/28/01JH1: Jan Hoh: Hansma postdoc; Johns Hopkins; 6/10/02JM1: John Mamin: UC Berkeley; IBM Almaden; 3/15/01JM3: James Massie: Elings master’s student; DI engineer; 10/18/01JN1: Jun Nogami: Quate postdoc; Michigan State; 6/28/01JV1: John Villarrubia: Yorktown postdoc; National Institute of Standards and

Technology; 6/28/00JW1: Jerome Wiedmann: Elings master’s student; DI employee; 10/18/01KW1: Kumar Wickramasinghe: Stanford; IBM Yorktown; 2/23/01MA1: Mike Allen: UC Davis; Digital Instruments; Biometrology; 10/12/01MK1: Mike Kirk: Quate student; Park Scientific Instruments; KLA-Tencor; 10/12/01MS1: Miquel Salmeron: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 3/9/01MT1: Matt Thompson: Digital Instruments; 2/26/01NB1: Nancy Burnham: Naval Research Lab postdoc; Worcester Polytechnic; 2/20/01OM1: Othmar Marti: IBM Zurich student; Hansma postdoc; University of Ulm; 11/16/01

39

PH1: Paul Hansma: UC Santa Barbara; 3/19/01PM1: Pete Maivald: DI employee; 10/18/01PW2: Paul West: Caltech; Quanscan; Topometrix; Thermomicroscopes; 3/30/01RC1: Rich Colton: Naval Research Lab; Baldeschwieler collaborator; 6/27/02RT1: Ruud Tromp: Yorktown researcher; 2/23/01SG1: Scot Gould: Hansma student; DI employee; Claremont McKenna; 3/27/01SL1: Stuart Lindsay: Hansma collaborator; Arizona State; Molecular Imaging; 1/6/03SM2: Sergei Magonov: Digital Instruments; 3/21/01TA1: Tom Albrecht: Quate student; Almaden researcher; 3/14/01TB1: Thomas Berghaus: Uni Bochum; Omicron; 11/19/01TJ1: Tianwei Jing: Arizona State; Molecular Imaging; 1/7/03VE1: Virgil Elings: UC Santa Barbara; Digital Instruments; 3/20/01

40